They're using NI LabView.. interesting but understandable given their laboratory approach thus far. https://www.ni.com/en-au/shop/labview.htmlHate the colour selection though - red/green is soooo 20th Century and industry has moved on since then. IMHO, contrast-based displays work so much better in the intensive environment of a control room.
Quote from: CameronD on 05/21/2020 11:52 pmThey're using NI LabView.. interesting but understandable given their laboratory approach thus far. https://www.ni.com/en-au/shop/labview.htmlHate the colour selection though - red/green is soooo 20th Century and industry has moved on since then. IMHO, contrast-based displays work so much better in the intensive environment of a control room.SpaceX was using LabView for the longest time on some of the early Falcon 9 launches; there's some views of mission control at Hawthorne during some of the CRS missions. Also described in their AMA some years back. TBH I was kind of surprised because, er, let's just say I'm really not a fan of it, but really when you're really busy making rockets just work spending time writing a better front end / control interface may just not be worth it.
I am yet to find someone that is a fan of Labview... Its graphical language might be good for positioning the pre-made buttons, gauges, indicators (probably the best tool for that) but the "programming" of the dataflow is just madness. When my professor talked about it the first time, he said that you can't use for more than 30 minutes long if you don't want an headache, un sadly it's quite true. If you know it well and you have experience with it then it might be a good idea to use it at least initially to have something that works. But other than that, nowadays it isn't that hard to make a simple GUI with a web interface (HTML+JS) or with a Python program.
Curious list of companies. RL, VO, Astra make sense, others are pretty big head scratchers. Notably Firefly and Relativity are absent, and I think combined they probably have 10-30x the total amount of hardware and number of employees of those three..https://spacenews.com/six-small-launch-companies-to-receive-dod-contracts-under-defense-production-act/
Any word on current launch date for their maiden flight? I saw something about August somewhere in the last couple months, can't remember where. I happen to be moving back to the Seattle area from San Diego this August and would love to try and see the launch at VAFB if they're pushing for that time-frame.
NextSpaceflight app and Steven Pietrobon's website both say Sept 6th.
Jason Rainbow from Connectivity Business sat down with Firefly CEO Dr. Tom Markusic for a discussion on Firefly's first launch, the current aerospace business climate and much more. Check it out! https://www.connectivitybusiness.com/insights/firefly-aerospace-connecting-dots-fly-above-smallsat-launch-challenges-qa
Where are you with plans to launch the first Alpha rocket?Tom Markusic: The plan is now mid-October this year
https://twitter.com/firefly_space/status/1277640750877028358Quote Jason Rainbow from Connectivity Business sat down with Firefly CEO Dr. Tom Markusic for a discussion on Firefly's first launch, the current aerospace business climate and much more. Check it out! https://www.connectivitybusiness.com/insights/firefly-aerospace-connecting-dots-fly-above-smallsat-launch-challenges-qa
JR: COVID-19 will push other smallsat ventures over the edge. Those that can’t weather the storm. That’s going to affect demand for launchers like Firefly. What are your forecasts for the industry?TM: I can’t say exactly. If you listen to others, they think there’s room for two or three small launchers in the industry. I just know I have to build the best launcher that provides the best payload capacity that matches customer needs. We have to provide the lowest cost per kilogram and everything else will take care of itself. I don’t worry too much about competition, frankly. I know we have a superior product and it will be the best on the market. If there’s only room for one, it will be us.JR: What is your company’s approach to pricing? Has that changed at all amid shifting market dynamics as you’ve been developing Alpha?TM: No, we knew that we had to be much better by a factor of two of existing options that were out there in smallsats. We also keep a keen eye on what’s going on with rideshare with some of the larger launch vehicles, and try to make sure we don’t get priced out of the market with them.Those are the two boundary conditions: The old state of affairs and cost per kilogram for small launchers and then the rideshare opportunities that are on the larger launchers. Those are the two bookends that we keep an eye on and make sure that we are still attractive to small satellites.
We’ll be coming out with that plan pretty soon. With that and the augmentation of Alpha with our orbital transfer vehicle, we can essentially do medium-lift missions with Alpha, and we can do them at about half the price per kilogram of what Alpha is doing now. Alpha paired with the OTV essentially creates a virtual medium-lift launcher.Once we have a medium-lift launcher with the OTV, we can create a virtual heavy launcher and be able to compete with some of the other large companies without having to build a large launch vehicle. It’s going to be something that’s not only different but separates Firefly from the crowd. We’re going to approach space launch in a completely different way. Details of which we’ll be giving in the future, but we believe that just building larger and larger rockets to do more and more ambitious missions is not the way to go, there are smarter ways to do it using more modern propulsion systems and robotics technology.
JR: How far away is all of this?TM: We’ll be flying elements of the first version of the OTV on the first flight in October. We’ll be demonstrating the plasma propulsion, all the primary structures and some of the other elements on the first flight. That is a pathfinder OTV. We’re working on the larger OTV, and it’s at the design stage right now. We’re looking forward to working with partners to develop the ultimate incarnation of the vehicle, which would deploy in about two years.
He's pretty cocky! But if they really are half the cost of 'existing smallsat launchers' (this has to mean Rocketlab, doesn't it?), maybe he has reason to be.
Here's another quote from Tom about their long term plans, which I found very interesting.QuoteWe’ll be coming out with that plan pretty soon. With that and the augmentation of Alpha with our orbital transfer vehicle, we can essentially do medium-lift missions with Alpha, and we can do them at about half the price per kilogram of what Alpha is doing now. Alpha paired with the OTV essentially creates a virtual medium-lift launcher.Once we have a medium-lift launcher with the OTV, we can create a virtual heavy launcher and be able to compete with some of the other large companies without having to build a large launch vehicle. It’s going to be something that’s not only different but separates Firefly from the crowd. We’re going to approach space launch in a completely different way. Details of which we’ll be giving in the future, but we believe that just building larger and larger rockets to do more and more ambitious missions is not the way to go, there are smarter ways to do it using more modern propulsion systems and robotics technology.Apparently, we need to be talking about the OTV more when we discuss Firefly.Next, a good question on the timeline.QuoteJR: How far away is all of this?TM: We’ll be flying elements of the first version of the OTV on the first flight in October. We’ll be demonstrating the plasma propulsion, all the primary structures and some of the other elements on the first flight. That is a pathfinder OTV. We’re working on the larger OTV, and it’s at the design stage right now. We’re looking forward to working with partners to develop the ultimate incarnation of the vehicle, which would deploy in about two years.This whole interview gives a general sense that Firefly is a much more active and ambitious company that we may have known. It's pretty exciting stuff.
I think plan is OTV combined with distributed launch, this allows them to deliver 1250kg anywhere in cislunar space and beyond with a few launches of Alpha. ULA may have been first to plug this idea with SpaceX SS taking it to whole different level.They are going down same path as RL with OTV being equivalent as Photon, with option to use it as OTV or satellite bus. Sounds like their financial backer may have investments in satellite companies that could use OTV bus.Last I heard they were partnering with Aerojet on OTV. Aerojet has capital and SEP technology to make this happen. No talk of RLV which would solve issue of gearing up for high production rates. This is partly why RL and SpaceX have gone for RLVs.
I think they are better sticking with Alpha and support satellites upto 1250kg. The smallsat market is growing and expanding operations to GEO which they can support with OTV.Beta means they start to go head to head with F9R which is tough competition.
